Sharyl Attkisson

Untouchable Subjects. Fearless, Nonpartisan Reporting.

News

IG report really is coming soon: hearing announced

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) Photograph by: Frank Plitt via Wikimedia Commons

The following is an announcement form the office of Senator Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.). It says there will be a December 11 hearing on the Inspector General's report into alleged government surveillance abuses.

Chairman Graham Announces Hearing on DOJ Inspector General’s Report on FISA Abuse Investigation

DOJ Inspector General Horowitz to Testify Publicly on Dec. 11

WASHINGTON – Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) today announced that Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz will testify before the Committee on Wednesday, December 11, 2019.

The Inspector General will discuss the findings of his investigation into DOJ and FBI’s conduct during the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrant process as it relates to the 2016 presidential election.

“I appreciate all the hard work by Mr. Horowitz and his team regarding the Carter Page FISA warrant application and the counterintelligence investigation of the Trump campaign.

“Mr. Horowitz will be appearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee on December 11, where he will deliver a detailed report of what he found regarding his investigation, along with recommendations as to how to make our judicial and investigative systems better.

“I look forward to hearing from him. He is a good man that has served our nation well.”

Read more by clicking the link below:

https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/press/rep/releases/chairman-graham-announces-hearing-on-doj-inspector-generals-report-on-fisa-abuse-investigation

Fight improper government surveillance. Support Attkisson v. DOJ and FBI over the government computer intrusions of Attkisson's work while she was a CBS News investigative correspondent. Visit the Attkisson Fourth Amendment Litigation Fund. Click here.

Silent bombshell in last week's impeachment testimony: State Dept. witnesses are the ones who conducted "shadow diplomacy"

Ambassador William Taylor

The following is a news analysis.

There has been an understandable (and predictable) effort by President Trump's opponents within the State Department and beyond to controversialize his foreign policy practices.

Among the supposed controversies is Trump's use of his personal adviser and attorney Rudy Giuliani, Energy Secretary Rick Perry, Special Envoy Kurt Volker, U.S. Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland, and Director of Office of Management and Budget Mick Mulvaney to implement Ukrainian diplomacy.

Trump critics and some in the media have incorrectly termed that as "shadow diplomacy."

Impeachment witness Ambassador William Taylor took great pains to repeatedly called this an "irregular channel," implying there was something sinister and wrong-- maybe even impeachable-- about the arrangement.

In fact, the resisting diplomats are the ones who are conducting shadow diplomacy when they are acting contrary to the president's wishes. Under the U.S. Constitution, the president directs all foreign policy; not the other way around.

Along those lines, there was something of a silent bombshell that nobody flagged in last week's impeachment testimony from Ambassador Taylor.

Taylor testified that he understood it was President Trump's desire to lock in a commitment from Ukraine to launch a corruption investigation by having the president, Vlodymyr Zelensky, say so on CNN. But Taylor further testified that he did not want the CNN interview to happen, and "sought assurances from Zelensky that he would not do so."

Support Attkisson v. DOJ and FBI

Under what authority did Taylor resist the President's foreign policy-- presumably behind his back?

Taylor and others also testified they assumed President Trump was seeking a campaign 2020 quid pro quo from Ukraine, and that they resisted that, too. We now know that Trump never mentioned the 2020 campaign-- at least there's no testimony or documentation so far that he did. He discussed investigating corruption tied to the 2016 election.

And we also know that quids pro quo -- although one was not consummated in the Ukraine case -- are a common and necessary part of foreign aid.

So, under what authority did these diplomats, who are tasked with implementing the president's foreign policy, assume his motivations as nefarious (having never met or spoken with him) and resist his policy desires?

Much of what they criticized isn't controversial at all-- except to the extent it's President Trump who's making the decisions. And, at times, his decisions are contrary to the opinions of some long-established diplomats.

What follows below is a description of the U.S. president's authority when it comes to who he can appoint to conduct diplomacy.

It was written in 1960 by Henry Wriston, President Emeritus of Brown University; Chairman of the Secretary of State's Public Committee on Personnel, 1954-56; President of the American Assembly, Columbia University; author of "Strategy of Peace," "Diplomacy in a Democracy" and other works.

Wriston's description makes clear that President Trump's use of Giuliani, Volker, Sondland and anybody else he pleases is clearly within his authority-- not "irregular" or sinister "shadow diplomacy."

Quids pro quo and using personal representatives to conduct diplomacy are not controversial.

The practice of diplomats going rogue to pursue their own foreign policy contrary to the president's wishes is controversial.

Regarding the impeachment debate at hand, the main valid question, which has not been well-defined, is whether President Trump improperly attempted to direct foreign policy solely for his personal, political benefit and/or to the detriment of U.S. interests. He says no. His enemies say yes.

Foreign Policy 1960 article

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/1960-01-01/special-envoy

Fight improper government surveillance. Support Attkisson v. DOJ and FBI over the government computer intrusions of Attkisson's work while she was a CBS News investigative correspondent. Visit the Attkisson Fourth Amendment Litigation Fund. Click here.

Seeking the wall

Part of the Arizona-Mexico border

Watch the Full Measure video investigation by clicking the link at the end of this story.

Building the wall was a top promise of the Trump campaign along with getting Mexico to pay for it. Well, Mexico hasn’t paid but some wall has been built with more progress made since summer after the Supreme Court ruled President Trump and use military funds. For a reality check on the wall we head to the Tucson Sector in Arizona, covering 262 border miles, and one of the busiest for illegal immigrants and drugs.

With dusk on the way, we’re far from civilization, in the northern part of Arizona’s Sonoran Desert.

Sharyl: Mexico is this way—Is that right?

Elledge: Yes, Mexico is approximately 34, 35 miles south of us here and we're just south by about six or seven miles of Three Points, Arizona.

Sharyl: Johnny Elledge is one of 250 agents assigned to the Border Patrol Search, Trauma, and Rescue Team, known as BORSTAR.

Sharyl: What's it like on a night like this?

Elledge: If you guys were here this morning, it was approximately 102 degrees. Now it's approximately 88 degrees. So the aliens and the smugglers are going to take advantage of this time that it's cooler to move.

Sharyl: if you find somebody, they've probably been walking for quite a while already?

Support Attkisson v. DOJ and FBI

Elledge: Yes. Most of the time if we're this far north of the border, the individuals have been walking for quite some time. And on BORSTAR, all of us are at a minimum of EMTs. And we also have paramedics.

Tena: This area, if you are lost or seeking aid, this is a very bad spot to be in.

Supervisory Border Patrol agent Richard Tena is trying out their newest technology.

Tena: This is a Polaris Ranger, that's been retrofitted with military specifications and it houses a scope package.

Sharyl: In this area where we are, have you run across much traffic?

Tena: Yes. This area, the Altar Valley, is historically very busy. For both illegal aliens and illegal narcotics trafficking. There’s never a dull moment, it's always busy.

Before long, they spot what they call a “quitter” an illegal immigrant who wants to be caught.

He’s Juan Manuel Juarez Melendez from Honduras.

Sharyl: How old are you? Cuantos anos?

Translator: 21

Sharyl: He tells me he came to the US for work it’s the second time he’s crossed illegally in two months.

Translator: because of the blisters I couldn’t continue walking. My last drink of water before this was around 6 or 7 in the morning.

Sharyl: Was there a fence that you crossed? How did you cross?

Translator: Up in the mountains

Sharyl: Where there was no fence?

(Continued below. Listen to the podcast on this topic at "Full Measure After Hours." Click the link below the photo.)

For more original, off-narrative reporting, subscribe to our PODCAST: "Full Measure After Hours" on iTunes or your favorite distributor. Or click here to listen now. Follow on Twitter! @FullMeasureAH

Translator: Just a barbwire fence.

Much of the border between the US and Mexico is just a barbed wire or other barriers easily crossed. This video shows 66 illegal immigrants on the Mexican side, on their way to a place where the fence ends and they walked into Arizona. Here, 38 illegal immigrants managed to cross from Mexico under old border wall. This photo shows how drug cartel vehicles use ramps to defeat vehicle barriers. And this group is walking into the U.S. between fencing and a short vehicle barrier. Before President Trump was elected, there were 654 miles of manmade barriers on the 1,933 mile long southern border. We wanted to find out how much new and improved wall has been built over the past three years. This is one spot along the Mexican border where there’s a big difference. The fence has been extended from 18 to 22 feet, it’s been reinforced, improved, and the razor wire added. We asked Ken Cuccinelli, head of US Citizenship and Immigration Services to quantify miles of new barrier.

Sharyl: Some people say there's almost nothing new as a result of President Trump. Some people argue there’s a lot of new wall or pieces of wall refurbishment. Is there a way to quantify what's been done?

Cuccinelli: Yeah. As we sit here, there's 75 miles of new wall. I think the debate arises because some of that new wall, which is this 18 foot steel girders with climb plates and that sort of thing, is replacing what looks like in some places dilapidated, the kind of things you see on tin shacks in third world countries, that people are walking through.

Construction crews have been demolishing old barriers where border patrol said they most needed help. Most of the new construction is replacement, and there’s a handful of new barrier miles. Here’s a section of old wall on the left— made of what’s called “landing mat” material— next to the replacement. Border patrol says the new barrier makes a difference. This 2005 video shows illegal crossings in San Luis, Arizona despite 10 foot high landing mat wall. Here’s that spot today— a “triple layered enforcement zone” featuring an 18 foot high fence made of hollow steel beams filled with concrete and reinforced steel. This is a spot where the new 18-foot border wall meets the new 30-foot border wall east of the San Luis, AZ commercial port of entry.

Sharyl: President Trump has said since before he was elected that we do not need a wall along the entire border. But 75 miles is not a very big piece three years in.

Cuccinelli: The Department of Defense money was only freed up truly this summer. Literally, we're only weeks or a couple of months after that happened. And the other element of it is that like a lot of other construction, it takes more time to get ready to build than it does to build. We've pounded through a lot of the land acquisition, some of which has to be done by eminent domain, not our first choice.

Overall, since President Trump took office in early 2017, nearly ten billion dollars has been secured for 509 miles of "new border wall system.” Besides the 75 miles built 157 miles more are under construction. 276 miles are in the pre-construction phase. They expect to get to 450 miles by the end of President Trump’s first term.

There’s one more complication. On an air tour with border sheriff Mark Dannels, we saw something surprising on the Mexico side. Wall prototypes that look like ours.

Dannels: This is obviously built by the cartel, and this is a duplication of what the U.S. – Mexico barrier looks like. And they practice on that before they get to the real one.

No sooner do we design a better wall.. than the Mexican drug cartels find ways to defeat it. Before we leave Arizona, we go on a last call with Border Patrol surveillance cameras captured this image of a man getting over the new and improved wall into the U.S then disappearing in a nearby neighborhood.

Border patrol: Looks like a rock was kicked out of the way there.

Border patrol: He in there? Yeah he’s right around the corner.

Sharyl: Agents finally found him in a tree, his hands seriously cut.

Sharyl: How do you think he got across? One of the most fortified places?

Border Patrol: We have a cut in the concertina wire over here We've seen a major reduction in crossings in these particular areas. This used to be very well known for a drug smuggling route, now we'll see since this one individual maybe one or two on a random or rare occasion.

Since we spoke to Trump officials, six more miles of border wall has been finished for a total of 81 miles. Border Patrol says it costs an average of $6.5 million dollars per mile to build or replace fencing.

Watch the story by clicking the link below.

http://fullmeasure.news/news/cover-story/seeking-the-wall

Fight improper government surveillance. Support Attkisson v. DOJ and FBI over the government computer intrusions of Attkisson's work while she was a CBS News investigative correspondent. Visit the Attkisson Fourth Amendment Litigation Fund. Click here.

Most say they won't closely watch impeachment proceedings: POLL

Eleven percent (11%) of those who answered the latest unscientific poll at SharylAttkisson.com say they "won't take their eyes off" the impeachment proceedings.

Forty-two percent (42%) say they are only interested in an overview.

Forty-seven percent (47%) indicated less interest, answering that the impeachment proceedings "do not exist to me."

Read the full results below. Meantime, be sure and vote in our latest poll at SharylAttkisson.com on the home page. Look for the black box in the right sidebar or scroll way down on the mobile site!

How closely will you watch impeachment proceedings?

11% Won't take my eyes off

42% Only interested in overview

47% They do not exist to me

Support Attkisson v. DOJ and FBI

Hospitals will have to now tell you their prices. This is "yuge."

The following is a news analysis.

On my Sunday TV program Full Measure, I've done quite a bit of reporting on the capricious cost of medical services at hospitals and how hard it is to get pricing upfront.

President Trump just instituted a new rule that will require hospitals to make that information available.

This could be a game changer.

As I reported, the prices hospitals charge vary widely and often do not seem to correlate to anything in particular. Insurance and private payers may be radically overcharged.

From my story comparing prices:

One hospital in the Los Angeles area charged $400 for the knee MRI. But a hospital in smaller Des Moines, Iowa quoted $3,500 ($3,536). That's eight and a half times as much for the exact same procedure.

Similar dramatic ranges are found within the same region. In Orlando, one hospital charged as little as $877 total. Another charged close to $2,000 ($1,980) and didn't even include the fee to read the MRI.

Hospitals in Los Angeles charged from $400 to $2,800 ($2,850).

Raleigh-Durham: about a $1,000 ($1,023) to $2,700 ($2,775).

Des Moines also from about $1,000 ($1,071) to $3,500 ($3,536).

Dallas and Fort Worth: $500 ($508) to $4,200 ($4,274).

And the biggest disparity was in the New York City area. The cheapest knee MRI was about $440. Another hospital in the area the most expensive in the survey charged $4,500!

Under President Trump's new rules, patients will be able to get this information upfront.

According to CNBC, "Hospitals will now be required to post their standard charges for services, which include gross charges, the negotiated rates with insurers and the discounted price a hospital is willing to accept from a patient."

Read more about the Trump rule by clicking the link below: https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/15/trump-releases-rule-requiring-hospitals-and-insurers-to-disclose-negotiated-rates.html

Fight improper government surveillance. Support Attkisson v. DOJ and FBI over the government computer intrusions of Attkisson's work while she was a CBS News investigative correspondent. Visit the Attkisson Fourth Amendment Litigation Fund. Click here.

The Border Wall: True Stats and Facts on Progress (PODCAST)

Some say tons of new wall have been built under Trump; others say nothing has been built. I went to the border and found the truth. Here are the stats and facts.

Joining me is Investigative Producer Daniel Steinberger.

Click the player below to listen.

Watch the video of the story at www.fullmeasure.news, posted on Sun. Nov. 17, 2019 and thereafter. 

For more original reporting, subscribe to my two podcasts on iTunes, Spotify or your favorite distributor: "Full Measure After Hours" and "The Sharyl Attkisson Podcast." Follow us on Twitter @FullMeasureAH @SharylPodcast!

Fight improper government surveillance. Support Attkisson v. DOJ and FBI over the government computer intrusions of Attkisson's work while she was a CBS News investigative correspondent. Visit the Attkisson Fourth Amendment Litigation Fund. Click here.

Raven 23 and the former U.S. soldier in prison under a life sentence

President Trump has stepped in to help three military troops whose supporters said were wrongly accused of war crimes.

Not impacted is a former soldier serving a life sentence for his actions while providing security for a U.S. diplomat in Iraq.

Nick Slatten served with the team known as "Raven 23." In 2007, Raven 23 was called to escort a U.S. diplomat to safety after a car bomb exploded. Warnings of possible suicide bombings had been issued. When a car barreled toward the U.S. convoy and refused to stop, Raven 23 fired and it began a horrific firefight. At least 14 "innocent civilians" were shot.

Amid prosecutorial misconduct and multiple trials, Slatten was ultimately convicted of first degree murder and is now serving a life sentence.

As is often the case, there is more to the story. Read my report below as it aired on Full Measure. A video link follows.

It seems every military conflict has its own tragic version of innocent civilians killed wrongly in the heat of war. In Iraq, there was the Nisour Square shootings in 2007. One of the accused, a decorated former U.S. soldier, was on trial just last week eleven years after the incident. In fact, the lives of four decorated former US soldiers still hang in the balance after all this time. Were their actions in legitimate self defense..or criminal acts? And did our own government suppress or misrepresent evidence? That's today's cover story: the case of Raven 23.

The logical place to begin is in Iraq— at the time, one of the most dangerous places on the planet. After the 9/11 attacks, U.S. forces deposed dictator Saddam Hussein — then faced a constant barrage from Islamic extremist terrorists and insurgents. On September 16, 2007 there was a deadly clash in the capital of Baghdad. A team of former US military troops code named “Raven 23” were working for the private firm, Blackwater, when they reportedly opened fire on innocent civilians. The episode heightened tensions between Iraq and the US— and the FBI stepped in to investigate. It concluded the Blackwater contractors “unleashed powerful sniper fire, machine guns, and grenade launchers on innocent men, women, and children” shooting at least 14 “without cause.” Including two boys ages 9 and 11. But like most stories—there are at least two sides. Erik Prince was Blackwater’s founder.

Erik Prince: This is the story of American military veterans who answered the call again when their country needed them— this time to protect diplomats— in a very large scale, in a war zone. And it is their political prosecution that followed an unfortunate incident in the middle of a war zone after multiple enemy attacks. 

Prince, a former Navy SEAL, made Blackwater an integral part of U.S. overseas security after Islamic extremist terrorists bombed the USS Cole in 2000— murdering 17 sailors. Blackwater was hired to train our sailors in counterterrorism. In 2004, Iraqi insurgents killed four Blackwater contractors, set their bodies on fire, dragged them through the streets and hung them from a bridge. 

Sharyl: What was the claim from the other side? What did they say that your guys had done wrong? 

Erik Prince: And it was a bad firing that there was all these innocent civilians that were killed. 

In fact, to this day, media accounts make it sound as if the “Blackwater guards” randomly “open(ed) fire” on Iraqi civilians— unprovoked and for no reason. But Prince says that sorely lacks context: the Raven 23 team thought it had come under ambush trying to escort the US official to safety. 

Erik Prince: A car bomb had gone off. And the support team, Raven 23 was to block the traffic circles so the fleeing vehicles can move through there, uh, smoothly. All the vehicle stopped except for one which kept coming and coming and coming. It was a white Kia. 

The Blackwater team reported the white Kia was driving straight at the convoy like a suicide bomber. When it kept going despite verbal orders and hand signals to stop, at least one Blackwater guard fired— killing the driver and his mother. Iraqis began firing back and a full-blown firefight broke out. Reba and Darrell Slatten are the parents of one of the Blackwater guards: Nick Slatten. 

Sharyl: So your understanding is that car to them was seen as a threat. So maybe that, maybe, maybe a car bomb. 

Darrell Slatten: That's what it was. So ‘stop, stop, stop.’ Keeps coming. 

Reba Slatten: They had been actually a brief that morning: ‘Be on the lookout for a white Kia because it's probably a car bomb.’ 
But Iraqi investigators and the FBI said panic and animosity toward the locals drove some members of Raven 23 to commit a criminal massacre. 

Sharyl: When you heard this report, did it ever occur to you that these men would end up being criminally prosecuted? 

Erik Prince: When I first heard the report of the events of September 16, it actually sounded like dozens and dozens of other incidents, uh, that the guys had been in and subject to in Iraq in war zones. Remember, helicopters were shot down, vehicles blown up, men shot by snipers, by suicide vests, by every kind of have a danger you could face. 41 of our men had been killed in action doing that work for the U.S. government and, you know, hundreds wounded on top of that. 

Sharyl: What do you think made this one different? 

Erik Prince: This was the height of the surge and it was also the height of real antiwar, noise and protest in the United States. 

Support Attkisson v. DOJ and FBI

Blackwater and other private contractors were also under increasing attack in Congress over allegations ranging from poor supervision to harmful misconduct. After the murky and disputed accounts of the tragedy in Iraq involving Raven 23 the pursuit of criminal charges against Slatten and the other Blackwater guards has spanned three U.S. presidential administrations. In 2008, Slatten and four others - all decorated former military soldiers—were charged with multiple counts of manslaughter.A year later—all the charges were thrown out due to misconduct by prosecutors. In 2011, prosecutors refiled charges — then dropped them against one man after new allegations of prosecutor misconduct. Among the four left, Nick Slatten was hit hardest. This time, instead of manslaughter, the Justice Department charged him with first degree murder — accusing him of firing the first shot at the Kia driver. Even though teammate Paul Slough had admitted to doing so.Nick Slatten’s sister, Jessica, is an attorney. 

Jessica Slatten: Multiple other up gunners shot into the car because the car kept coming. My brother never shot at the Kia. The government has known that since day one.

The Slattens say Nick told them not to bother to come from Tennessee to the first trial a joint trial held in Washington DC in 2014. 

Reba Slatten: He said, mom, I'm not a murderer. I didn't shoot the driver of the Kia. Um, so don't come up here. Don't waste your time. Don't waste your money. I'll see you. I thought he was coming home. 

At that first trial, Slatten was forbidden from telling the jury that one of his co-defendants had admitted to the shooting he was accused of. All four men were convicted. All of them except Slatten got 30 years in prison. Slatten got life— for first degree murder. 

Sharyl: So what did it make you think as a mom when you thought he was just doing his job and you heard that he was being perceived as a criminal? 

Reba Slatten: I couldn't believe that the United States was doing this to my son who served four years in the 82nd airborne and loves this country. I was in shock.

But the story was far from over after the 2014 trial. The convictions started a movement by family members and advocates. For them, a big break came last year. An appeals court determined the sentences were “cruel and unusual punishment” and threw them out. And it said Slatten deserved a new trial because jurors had been kept from hearing key evidence in his defense. The new trial began in Washington D.C. in JulyThis time, Slatten’s parents, grandmother and sister were all there. And this time, jurors finally got to hear that Slatten’s teammate had acknowledged shooting the driver of the white Kia. The one prosecutors accused Slatten of murdering. But this past Wednesday, after a month of deliberations, the trial — Slatten’s second — ended with no resolution. A hung jury. The Justice Department declined our requests for comment and hasn’t yet said whether it will try Slatten yet again. Slatten’s family say Nick is the victim of a malicious prosecution in our government’s misguided attempt to use Raven 23 as a symbol of accountability in an unpopular war. 

Darrell Slatten: And this case has brought me to understand that we don't really live in a country of justice and truth. It's about the check in the winners' column. And that's what our justice system is today. Totally corrupt.

Slatten and the other Raven 23 members have been charged, had charges dropped, were recharged and convicted, then had those sentences thrown out. All are still in prison while the Justice Department decides on next steps. Meantime, they’ve served more than four years— that’s longer than a Blackwater colleague who plead guilty a decade ago to voluntary manslaughter served a year and a day.

Watch the video of Raven 23 story by clicking this link: http://fullmeasure.news/news/cover-story/raven-23

Fight improper government surveillance. Support Attkisson v. DOJ and FBI over the government computer intrusions of Attkisson's work while she was a CBS News investigative correspondent. Visit the Attkisson Fourth Amendment Litigation Fund. Click here.